PVL3702 FINAL PACK 2019 UPDATED.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE OCT/NOVEMBER 2019 3 MAY/JUNE 2019 15 OCT/NOVEMBER 2018 26 MAY/JUNE 2018 36 OCT /NOVEMBER 2016 46 OCT- NOVEMBER 2019 PVL3702 FINAL PACK 2019 UPDATED. SECTION A 1. 1 2. 5 3. 2 4. 1 5. 2 6. 2 7. 3 8. 4 9. 5 10. 2 11. 4 12. 1 13. 2 14. 1 15. 3 16. 4 17. 3 18. 1 19. 5 20. 2 21. 2 22. 1 23. 3 24. 3 25. 1 SECTION B QUESTION 1 The general rule is that no formalities are required for the formation of contracts. In Most cases an informal contract is binding and contracts are validly concluded without the observation of any formalities. For example, most contracts of sale arise orally or through conduct. If a person removes an item from a supermarket shelf and, without a Word, offers a bank note at the point of payment, and the shop assistant accepts the Money and allows the person to take the item, a contract of sale with the person arises Tacitly through conduct. Normally, parties are free to choose the way in which they wish to create a contract, And they may, at will, conclude the contract in writing, orally or tacitly. Thus, when Parties wish to conclude a contract of lease of movable assets (a type of contract for Which formalities are not required by law) they are free to decide whether the contract Should be concluded in writing, orally or tacitly. Therefore if the parties had agreed to certain formalities those formalities should have been complied with therefore no contract came into place. QUESTION 2 Where the offeror has prescribed a time limit for acceptance, the offer lapses automatically if it is not accepted within the prescribed period. According to A to Z Bazaars (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Agriculture 1975 (3) SA 468 you must ask has the offeror prescribed any formalities of a valid acceptance ,if the offeror has prescribed a specific mode of acceptance, the acceptance must take this mode to be valid. The general rule is that a contract comes into being only when the acceptance is communicated to the mind of the offeror. The information theory, which is the general rule in our law, states that the agreement is concluded when and where the offeror learns or is informed of the acceptance – in other words, when the offeror reads the letter of acceptance. On the other hand, the expedition theory applies to postal contracts. In terms of this theory, introduced into our law in the Cape Explosive Works case, a contract comes into being when and where the offeree posts the letter of acceptance. By making an offer through the post, the offeror is deemed not only to have authorised acceptance by post, but also to have waived the requirement of notification of acceptance. The question that then arises is which theory applies. In our law, the general rule is that the information theory applies, however the expedition theory will apply if the following four criteria are met: 1. The offer is made by post or telegram 2. The postal services are operating normally 3. The offeror has not indicated a contrary intention, expressly or tacitly, and 4. The contract is a commercial one. If any of these criteria are not met, the information theory applies. In this question, the offer was not made by post, instead it was sent by private courier, and therefore the expedition theory does not apply. It follows that the information theory must be applied. Because S only learnt of the acceptance by P after expiry of the offer (when S read the